main

Microsoft prices and dates OneCare service

Steven Parker   on 08 February 2006 - 13:07 · 109 comments & 23550 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Microsoft has revealed more details of its all-in-one PC care service dubbed OneCare Live.
Already in beta, the subscription-based package will be officially released in the US in June from retailers and via the Web. A year's subscription will cost $49.95 and will cover up to three personal computers.

The suite will offer anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall components, as well as performance optimisation utilities and back up and restore tools. Technical support - in the form of e-mail, phone and chat - will be included as part of the package.

The automatic and self-updating service is intended to make it simpler for consumers to protect and maintain their PCs. With numerous security threats exploiting the slothfulness of consumers to patch their machines in a timely manner, Microsoft will be aiming squarely at users looking to offload responsibility for maintaining their own systems. Combined with a low price, the proposition could prove attractive to a large proportion of the Windows user base.
 
News source: PC Pro

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 109 additional comments
(5 replies) #1 paulladle on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:14
So I'm supposed to stump up $50 a year to make sure that vunerabilities in the OS don't leave me open to malware/trojans/viruses. I understand that anti-trust legislation stops Microsoft from adding bonus stuff for free to prevent them stitching up alternatives but I don't really think OS security is a bonus. Basically this means that the average Joe is not going to pay the $50 a year and leave their machine vunerable to all sorts of nastyness.
#1.1 MasterSpy on 08 Feb 2006 - 22:08
Catch 22. You either attempt to make people pay for OS protection, because if you give it away free, you'll be up in court, or you give it away for free... and still end up in court.
#1.2 TC17 on 08 Feb 2006 - 23:05
I agree. This is just stupid and an outrageous price. Paying a company to fix their own flaws. That has to be illegal.
#1.3 MasterSpy on 09 Feb 2006 - 08:39
Why would it be illegal? Nobody is forcing you to buy Windows?
#1.4 shao on 09 Feb 2006 - 11:38
plus a majority of flaws in the OS are down to innappropriate usage by the user, and not necessarily the operating system. If you want to be stupid and run in the wrong user context, open all mail attachments, and click yes to install software all the time you could do a lot worse than signing up for onecare live.

alternatively, you could stay safe, stay clean. run in standard user context - like all other modern OS's
#1.5 sphbecker on 10 Feb 2006 - 00:42
Windows updates are free, those are the fixes to venerabilities, so what you said is not true. Anti-virus and Anti-spyware software basically protects the user from him self; or gives power users a little more confidence in running code from untrusted sources. Either way you look at it, it isn't part of OS security.

Wake up people, the fact that an OS will run code the user tells it to is not a flaw.

Having said that, I am a little shocked that they are charging for OneCare. Vista is going to include its functionality for free, so why charge XP users for the same thing?
(6 replies) #2 Matt500 on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:16
Hmm paying Microsoft to protect vulnerabilities in their own operating system, does this mean future operating systems from them will be limited in their security so OneCare must be purchased? Shouldn't this all be part of a modern operating system?


#2.1 GShapiro on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:34
So let me get this straight. You are stupid enough to download a Trojan and even more stupid to run it and your hard drive gets wiped out its the fault of the OS and not yours?

Yeah..... right.
#2.2 petrop on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:09
GShapiro, do you remember MSblaster? or WMF 0-day vulnerability? This is just an exemple, but the reality is that the Windows OS is full of vulnerabilities, and I'll not buy a security product from the same company that makes the OS. If this is so good, why not merge it into windows?
#2.3 Foub on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:11
This sounds like a protection racket to me. "You have such a nice place here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it...."
#2.4 TC17 on 08 Feb 2006 - 23:06
GShapiro=Microsoft fanboy
#2.5 kazzama on 09 Feb 2006 - 06:17
err TC17.. GShapiro did not mention Microsoft once in his statement, nor did he praise them.
#2.6 shao on 09 Feb 2006 - 11:43
there are plenty of spyware protection rackets out there... and they are becoming increasingly well documented. For example, spyware sherriff (I wont link), installs itself through browser hacks, and viruses, and via other dodgy means. It then bombards the user with reports that their operating system is littered with malware. Problem is, it reports operating system files as being infected, and then charges the user to download their software to remedy the problem - in actual fact it finds no real malware, and thusly only deletes operating system files.

onecare live, and windows defender on the other hand, are good products made by a decent company. Get off your high horse and start living in the real world Matt500
(4 replies) #3 Karl3000 on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:19
I understand the arguments, but if you do not want to pay them for OneCare, just buy Norton, McAfee or one of the others. Case closed!
#3.1 1ceman1 on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:30
I agree. It's no different. I think OneCare is an excellent product, though it still has a few bugs to be worked out.
Love that fact it's only $50 and can be installed on upto THREE pcs. Great Stuff.
Go MS!!!
#3.2 daPhoenix on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:39
Or you could download Avast for free and get a product that actually works.

Instead of getting BSD grade security sell your crappy bug ridden product to the masses.

Go MS indeed.
#3.3 Foub on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:13
It is quite different. They don't offer an OS as well. Security should be part and parcel of it.
#3.4 DJROrion on 09 Feb 2006 - 15:23
So should media player and an Internet browser but we all know how that ended up
(3 replies) #4 Haval_Kocher on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:22
Well looks like the next Service Pack for XP is going to have this product built in and another reason for the european commision to fine Microsoft yet again because of other competitors moaning about this.
#4.1 Smigit on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:25
source?
#4.2 Pwn3r on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:20
Too much beer?
#4.3 Subaru on 08 Feb 2006 - 22:17
(9 replies) #5 ahhell on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:25
How is this any different then buying Norton or McAfee....oh that's right IT'S NO DIFFERENT.

All you MS haters need to think before spewing out BS....go back to your Mac and shut up.
#5.1 longwilli on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:37
That argument holds no water. Its Microsoft’s fault that hackers can exploit their os it isn't Symantec’s or MacAfee’s they are simply providing a product to protect. Microsoft are charging you £100 for an OS then saying oh btw its full of holes, now we will patch it but your still going to be open to attack so here is a package at $50 a month to help you against these floors. It’s like the car salesman screwing you twice once when you buy the car then again on the 'protection' plan. Microsoft have stated to users that one of vista's cornerstones is it security yet it seems this will now be an optional extra. Plus other companies offer antivirus and firewall services for free, so why isn't microsoft? Its an easy way to scare people into paying for a product which should be free.
#5.2 Frank on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:06
I don't see how your argument holds any water. If Microsoft was to include this in their OS Symantec and Mcaffe would bitch and then they would have anti trust suits to deal with. All software is full of holes and security vulnerabilities, since a HUMAN coded the software.

Many users run Windows without anti virus software and never have a problems. I myself run Anti Virus software and in the last three years I haven't received one virus. This product isn't protecting you from "holes" in Microsoft's security but rather protecting you from being stupid and opening up a email attachment you shouldn't have or not updating your java program and having a Trojan downloaded to your machine. There is only so much Microsoft can do, the rest is up to the user.

I am not saying Windows is perfect or that it couldn't get better but what I am saying is Microsoft has make some big changes to the way it patches Windows and it has gotten much better over the last few years.
#5.3 balupton on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:11
That argument holds no water. Its Microsoft’s fault that hackers can exploit their os it isn't Symantec’s or MacAfee’s they are simply providing a product to protect.

Macs are more or less just as bad/good in security, but y make viruses etc for Mac when the masses use windows?
Sorta goes against the whole idea of making a virus if you create it for the less used OS.
#5.4 Smigit on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:24
Theres more to it than that. Mac's are probably harder to exploit by nature. Afterall, imagine being the 1st person to really bring down a good percent of the worls macs with an attack...it'd be a bigger feat than writing a virus that inflicts damage on a couple of thousand pc's but a fix or virus definition is released within the hour since theres so many people working on windows security. Macs arent perfect but if they were as bad they would still get viruses in decent numbers as its not like noone uses them. Also much of their market are businesses and graphucs professionals ect so taking out macs can be alot more interruptive than a home pc.

just my thoughts anyway
#5.5 Jugalator on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:47
"How is this any different then buying Norton or McAfee....oh that's right IT'S NO DIFFERENT."

Besides from being the same company that introduces the vulnerabilities.

No wait, that's not controversial at all... :p
#5.6 Harper on 08 Feb 2006 - 16:39
Enough talk about water, you guys. Now, I have to pee reeeeeaaally bad because of you. Damn you all!!
#5.7 longwilli on 08 Feb 2006 - 18:13
I’m not saying that it should be bundled but rather, the product should be either a one off payment when you purchase the OS or it should be a free download. Much in the way antispy is currently done.

In addition Microsoft in doing this has left itself open to attacks from users who see vulnerabilities go unpatched for a long period. As a way of forcing them to signup for one care.

Finally, Harper just go to the toilet
#5.8 DJROrion on 09 Feb 2006 - 15:28
How is tihs price any different than buying norton or Mcaffe and having to renew your subscription every year? O yah its not.
#5.9 longwilli on 09 Feb 2006 - 19:58
Yeah but notton and Mcaffe are not the only ones availble and they need the revenue, they are third party developers they dont produce the OS.
#6 Smigit on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:28
Seems pretty goot to me. Price is equivalent to other vendors and its useable on multiple PC's.

I dont like the app alot but its extremly simple and integrates well with windows. It should be a great product for the less tech savvy people.

I prefer PC-Cillian myself, but it's good to have this on the market. I also can see no issue with MS releasing an antivirus tool. Not all malicious code attacks the vulnerabilities in the OS itself anyway so it's still good to have. If they get around to bundling anti spyware then that will be another incentive since in my oppinion thats the best anti spyware tool around.

Anyone got any comments regarding the actual performance of the anti virus part of this?
#7 lordpake on 08 Feb 2006 - 13:30
Included tech support will definitely be useful for those basic home users who have no clue about the inner workings of their pc.
#8 nezermundy on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:03
3 Computers for $50 that is a good deal and the porgramme is not that bad.
(10 replies) #9 Croquant on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:19
You don't need to pay for a firewall, or an Anti-Virus program, or anti-malware. Those of you who actualy know your ass from your elbow know that what I say I true. The rest of you are ignorant fools.

However, since the ignorant fools outnumber the rest of use, Microsoft is sure to make a tidy profit from their OneCare product.
I'll be fair and wait for OneCare to actual hit RTM statua before I pass judement on it, but frankly I'm not optomistic about it. Microsoft does have one advantage no other vedor does: they have access to the Windows source code, so they can use that to leverage the Windows kernal, potentialy getting better performance out of anty sotware they write than another vendor possibly could. Well, in theory anyways. As we all know, this isn't always reflected in the actual product. That said, I can't see OneCare being a product that I'd recomend, at least not initialy. Why would I pay Microsoft when I've got free software that does everything I need? Besides, do you really trust Microsoft to protect your computer? I sure as hell don't.
#9.1 Smigit on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:42
yeah but the free alternatives arent always the best. At the very least paying for software often means you are guaranteed some after market support which is important for people that cant fix things themselves
#9.2 mikeyj on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:43
I like how you got right to the point, however I'm just wondering if you believe all that sh!t you just wrote?
#9.3 Smigit on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:02
me or Croquant?
#9.4 Croquant on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:28
Um, I think he meant you, Smigit. Just becasue a peice of software is pay-ware doesn't mean you'll receive satisfaction from tech support. It's got more to do with the integrity of the developer than weather or not you had to pay for it. I know some people have hard time when it comes to reading and understanding the directions, but these are also the same people who are cognitivey incapable of getting satifaction from tech support. You either have the aptitude for it or you don't, guy.
#9.5 fragmore on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:29
Croquant.

Before you yell about ignorance, get a good grammer and a good spell checker and then use them.

Or, go back and finish school.
#9.6 Smigit on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:45
Croquant. Yes I dont claim that by paying for software you are guaranteed support but at least it is often there. It's usually alot better for most people than a public forum or w/e and for a business especially it is vital.

for those that are savy, ie everyone here, then yes, theres always free alternatives, whether they are as good as the paid for services is a never ending debate. (by paid I dont mean the likes of norton but some of the other ones)
#9.7 Harper on 08 Feb 2006 - 16:37
Too much talk about "holding water"....now I have to pee.
#9.8 markjensen on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:40
fragmore,

Instead of making posts filled with personal insults/attacks, perhaps you would do well to discuss any points that were made that you may have had issue with.

And a bit of consideration for people for whom English may be a second language is in order. There are many people posting here that use English as a secondary language. Plus, consider the possibility of typos.

There is no need to start offtopic flames here.
#9.9 mikeyj on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:56
my remarks was intended for Croquant
#9.10 PCyr on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:04
"Croquant.

Before you yell about ignorance, get a good grammer and a good spell checker and then use them.

Or, go back and finish school."

Speaking of proper gramm*a*r and spelling...

"Croquant,

Before you yell about ignorance, get a good grammar and a good spell checker and then use them.

Otherwise, go back and finish school."
#10 indiehead on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:29
yep,

buy a subscription cos we made your machine so complex you'll be nailed if you don't

duh!

like, doesn't a decent adsl modem have a firewall anyway these days?
#11 Hercules on 08 Feb 2006 - 14:49
Now all they need to do is offer a 'family pack' for their OS so I don't have to spend eleventy billion dollars to upgrade to Vista. Because you know... I won't.
#12 Jugalator on 08 Feb 2006 - 15:43
I think I'll choose the free antivirus, antispyware, and firewalls... Especially when this is for home use (3 computers).
There's plenty of quality free security software aimed for home use to pick from. Easy to use too!

I guess you're just paying for the tech support here, really...
Can't see any special advantages here otherwise, and it's clearly nothing I'll go for.
#13 Lare2 on 08 Feb 2006 - 16:17
Why not sell it for single computers at arround $ 17, that would be a better deal
#14 marlow714 on 08 Feb 2006 - 16:20
Very nice. OneCare is a great product. $49 bucks to for three computers is a good deal. I've been Beta testing OneCare for months now while running other apps to check-up on it to make sure it's doing it's job. Glad to say it is. The only setting I had to changed was the firewall - changed it to prompt for any attempts in or out. For all the MS trolls posting in this thread - make the switch as save us from your babble.
#15 DigeratiPrime on 08 Feb 2006 - 16:58
if they make it too cheap or free the security companies would freak. all i want is a simple application firewall.
(3 replies) #16 Indy_Mav on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:02
I too think this is a good deal. BTW, thats $49.95 a YEAR for up to 3 machines. Let's see you get that from mcafee or norton... I've been testing OCL for months and have zero issues with it. Some of you also forget that it is more than a firewall/spyware/antivirus software, it also does backups (to external hard drives, I might add) plus it does a complete system clean up.

If I don't get a free subscription from being a Beta tester, I'll be giving them my $50 just after the release.
#16.1 VikingStorm on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:41
No you won't. It is 19.95 for all beta testers.
#16.2 Indy_Mav on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:48
Hmm...missed that somewhere.... oh well....not free but at least I won't have to pay full price.
#16.3 marlow714 on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:51
That's cool if it's true. I wonder if it'll be 19.95 for all beta tester machines. I've installed it on 8 machines.
(1 reply) #17 B0GiE on 08 Feb 2006 - 17:53
<<removed>>

Last edited by bangbang023 on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:04
#17.1 guardian_uk on 08 Feb 2006 - 19:23
we dont want pirates like you out here. so either start using genuine stuff or, get out.
#18 fpd on 08 Feb 2006 - 19:46
MS should secure their OS by default. This should have been included in Vista from the start.
After all MS could equally introduce vulnerabilities into the OS and force people to purchase OneCare.
At least a resident scanner should be included in Windows. (If Windows can have a basic firewall and antispyware, I don't see why security can't be hardened further with antivirus?)
The end user would prefer not to have to configure anything anyway. Those with more advanced needs could always buy commercial software.
(1 reply) #19 flipnode on 08 Feb 2006 - 19:46
They give it away for free or integrate it into the OS, competitors call foul, antitrust suit ensues.
They charge for it, people complain about it.

It's a no win scenario for MS.
#19.1 TC17 on 08 Feb 2006 - 23:08
The Microsoft should not be making it period. Simple enough.
#20 John on 08 Feb 2006 - 20:37
People seem to be forgetting WINDOWS SECURITY PATCHES WILL STILL BE FREE! They aren't "charging users to receive fixes for intentionally buggy software" as many of you seem to believe. They are merely selling an antivirus, firewall, and backup solution all-in-one.
(1 reply) #21 SniperX on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:01
Only Microsoft could dream up the business model of making insecure software and then having the audacity to charge customers extra for securing it. What type of business model is it when you are supposed to develop a secure OS in one hand, then, in the other, you want to sell software which can only be viable for as long as your core operating system is insecure? Talk about a conflict of interests!

The real tragedy is, of course, they'll sell it by the bucketload. And if they don't then hey, I can hear it already, "The security is not our fault. We released OneCare, it's up to Customers to purchase it. We've done our bit."

Someone said it's a no-win situation for Microsoft. It's quite the opposite; pure win/win.
#21.1 minnow_trap on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:21
Of course for saying this, you will "insult" the models of business. (But I like it) There are no other points here really, most have been complete already.
#22 tiwaris on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:21
MS has the right to charge for the things like anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewall etc.

The sell an OS and so have a moral obligation to make it as secure as possible, but the world and the dog knows that an OS cannot be hundred percent secure and there will always exist vulnerabilities (one primary reason being the OS is continuously being changed, getting new features and functionality).

The anti-blah blah softwares are designed to protect (well to be precise, to prevent) a computer from future attacks (not for an exploit that is already known) and therefore is a bonus on top of the OS software.

As soon as a vulnerability gets discovered, the patches for that should be made available for free.
#23 toadeater on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:38
If it was free, it might be worth it. $49.95 is a joke. Get a real AV and firewall from someone who specializes in security. There are also freeware/opensource products available that work well too.

We've already discussed MS's backdoors in their security software in another thread. MS is not trustworthy. Even if they were (and they are NOT), their security products are of poor quality compared to the competition.

Personally, I use Symantec AV corp ed., Clamwin AV (opensource), Ewido (free), Kaspersky, McAfee AV, F-Prot, and Sygate (discontinued, so DL it on p2p, still the best). I like multiple opinions. No single AV is 100% reliable. I don't keep anything running in the background except Sygate, only do on-demand scans.

Oh, and if you want to improve your security, stay away from IE and Outlook express. It's that simple.
#24 vlsi0n on 08 Feb 2006 - 22:12
It's a good beta maybe I'll pick it up later when it comes out but right now I already have enough to protect me; Anti-Virus, anti-spyware = no problems. I thought they were going to have this for free, the anti-spyware part anyway, thats disappointing becuase if I want just the anti-spyware I have to have the anti-virus etc. Oh well $50 a yr. isnt, is not, not really, is really not, not not no, no, not a lot of money, so the whiners need to stop; you'll get the prduct the same way you always get the MS products that sux0s and that you hate :pirate: lol
(2 replies) #25 stifler6478 on 08 Feb 2006 - 23:10
I can't believe any of you would actually be dumb enough to think that Microsoft would KNOWINGLY, PUPOSEFULLY incorporate vulnerabilities in their code. It would be THE single most retarded thing any software company ever did. Other AV/AS vendors have been doing a great job of protecting from viruses/spyware, and Microsoft has been doing an increasingly better job of getting Security Fixes out there to the public.

I believe, for the most part, that it is the consumer's fault for getting a virus. Obviously the vulnerabilities in the OS help that along, but for christ sakes, don't open attachments from people you don't know or some email written in some other language.

I've had Norton Systemworks running on my computer ever since I got it a year and a half ago, and I've been "threatened by about 2 viruses, of which NAV took care of immediately. I'm pretty sure that number has been zero ever since I switched to Firefox.

Now, Microsoft sees they can easily get into this market and make money off of it. They CANNOT release this for free, because they would get railed by anti-trust ventures. At least they are making something that does take care of vulnerabilities that show up.

For you people who like to criticize, I'd like to see you write a program that has 40 MILLION+ lines of code and not have unseen vulnerabilities in it. I'm waiting.

I think I may look into OneCare (probably because I am technically in the beta) after it comes out to more reviews. Plus I can probably have my parents pay for it back home and use it on their computer and my computer here.

-Spenser
#25.1 Coolme on 08 Feb 2006 - 23:27
I am willing to bet my money on the fact that computer security related companies (like symantec) had actually released a few viruses to spur up fear in the consumer and in turn find a solution to depend on.

Also, I have to say that there are some viruses, tojan horses etc... that doesn't require you to open attachments or click on a link to activate, all you need is a windows computer with an open internet connection. And for the most part, I think people should be more fearful to root kits than viruses, TJ, etc... because you of the fact that you can't see them. Even if you can monitor the kernal, root kits can make the kernal ignor itself, making it almost impossible to rid of the root kit.
#25.2 minnow_trap on 09 Feb 2006 - 00:17
I agree with you a 100% Coolme. I have thought that as well....... many times.
(1 reply) #26 Coolme on 08 Feb 2006 - 23:17
Microsoft is taking the wrong way to make windows more secure, they are trying to sell people protection for their vulnerable products, when they should be trying to make windows more secure instead. Should Windows Security come at a premium? When people buy their software should they look for security out of the box? (Ironically, that's a part of windows vista's slogan (Clear, confident, connected)) Or should they buy it just for the sake that it's the most popular operating system out there? Microsoft is clearly taking their advantage of having a monopoly in the OS market. And I don't support that at all. (Do car manufacturers make cars that are structually weak and sell them? No becuase there is a standard imposed by governments that they must pass, and in this case, there are no regulations for software because it's very difficult to reinforce them, but that's no excuse for microsoft to sell protection for their vulnerable products, security should be expected as a standard.)
#26.1 longwilli on 09 Feb 2006 - 00:28
You have hit the nail on the head.
(3 replies) #27 Andy13 on 09 Feb 2006 - 01:04
Not a bad deal. Not at all.

Damn, people are always picking on Microsoft. It's like Apple can commit the biggest sin ever and still be considered god, while Microsoft bends over backwards and tries to make their consumers happy, and no matter what they do, people keep complaining and saying bad things about Microsoft.

In the 90's, and even the early 00's, I'll admit Microsoft wasn't very good at this -- they were pretty cold towards their consumers and treated them like they were servants, or serfs. Nowadays Microsoft seems much more friendlier and more respectful to the public.
#27.1 thenewbf on 09 Feb 2006 - 06:22
Um... how exaclty is Microsoft bending over backwards to make it's customers happy? They're charging people to protect them from something that's their own fault.

How about I build you a house with holes in the wall, claim I didn't know they were there (I didn't notice, I was in a rush and couldn't check over the whole house), and then get you to pay me to fix the holes? By the way, the plumbing doens't work all the time, and the electricity is on the fritz, but you shouldn't be upset because I swear I did my best.

Windows 95 was supposed to be 'safer'. Windows 98 was supposed to be safer, too. So was Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, and 2000 SP1-4, and XP SP1&2. Windows Vista is supposed to be safer too, and it already has viruses while it's still in beta.

There were about 10 000 Vista testers around the time of the first Vista virus. There's over 20 million OS X users and still not a single virus. There's even prizes being offered for the first person to successfully create a self-replicating, mass-infecting virus (like those commonly found on Windows systems), and still no virus(es). Security firms (who, in many people's opinions, are just trying to get money from the Mac market) continually claim that OS X is vulnerable, that there's theoretical ways of exploiting the OS, that the systems can be compromised (with security features enabled), and still nothing successful. A subsidiary of Symantec released a recent article saying an 'anonymous security researcher' was attacked with an 'unknown exploit' by an 'unknown attacker', but there seems to be no concrete evidence of it happening in the first place. Does Windows get more viruses because more people dislike Microsoft? Not really, because a lot of people still hate Apple and there still hasn't been anything in terms of successful exploits for OS X.

People just need to face the fact that Apple's OS X is one of the safest operating systems on the market and that Windows is just one poor excuse for an OS after another. Maybe Windows should at least look at the source code for Unix before they decide to go through with Blackcomb (Windows Vista's successor).
#27.2 marlow714 on 09 Feb 2006 - 09:52
hey thenewbf, that's not a long enough rant. I'm glad to see a troll like you can use that computer of yours for something constructive. Wake up, your mac isn't as perfect as you may think brother. Why don't you use all that time on your hands to say something other than your 12 year old apple.com babble?
#27.3 sphbecker on 10 Feb 2006 - 00:58
Those self-replicating viruses you speak of are few and far between in Windows. It has been over 5 years sense the last one was able to take advantage of a fully patched Windows system. I'm sure you are already thinking that it isn't far to include patches when you talk about an OS' security. Well before you reply please take a look at OS X's patch history. They have had a number of patches which corrected issues what would have allowed self-replicating viruses. Or course, even if those were not patched, it is really hard for a self-replicating virus to get very far if its target audience only had a 3% market share.
(1 reply) #28 marlow714 on 09 Feb 2006 - 04:30
Troll posters are not only missing the point entirely but are not taking into consideration anything but their own opinions of MS.
#28.1 stifler6478 on 09 Feb 2006 - 07:43
Short, sweet, and absolutely correct.

My challenge from above still stands. I'll edit it a bit more too to put it into perspective. I still want to see any of you trollers create a program that has 40+ million lines of code and not have any unforseen vulnerabilities that can lead to virus attacks. Then when that fails, I want you to release an AV/AS/Performance Check utility for free without getting railed by Anti-Trust lawsuits.

Again, I'm still waiting.

-Spenser
(1 reply) #29 Ideas Man on 09 Feb 2006 - 15:17
To all the morons who think that Microsoft should just secure their OS to stop viruses, I seriously can't wait until the day when linux and macos start get mass viruses like Windows currently does, and being able to watch how you fools will defend it trying to use the pathetic "It's open source, it'll be fixed fast" or whatever stupid claims are made these days to defend a flaw that undermines your lord.

Viruses are NOT all issues from Windows, many socially engineer people into running them, is that Microsoft's fault? NO! Microsoft provides a platform to run code on, so you can use your computer the way you want to use it, the problem with that is, so can virus writers. To make Windows super secure, the security model that obviously nobody can provide, which you all expect Windows to provide, would require that ALL code executable on the system is verified by Microsoft, and authorized by Microsoft to execute, then, and only then, can the computer be truly secure.

No operating system is safe from viruses, the lack of market share doesn't make them a prime target like Windows does, and don't say that's not an issue. If any non-blind firefox observer has noticed, there have been many, many flaws released for it, hell, 8 in the past week, and this is a direct result of increased market share, as it went up, the issues went up. The difference is, these flaws aren't public knowledge (Oh, I wonder why ), but they're there, and they are at the critical stage where serious damage can be done. If a user allows executable code to run, then it will do as much damage as possible, now unless linux requires to you OK every single action, it's vulnerable to it, just like any other operating system, it may not delete system files, but it can most certainly delete all the user's files, because a user can do that, and that is one of the worst types of virus, give me an operating system that can defend against that, I challenge you, because you won't find one.

Anti-virus software is designed to stop this, it's designed to stop executable code with malicious intent, whether it's some virus that's designed to tick you off with some stupid window that won't disappear or one that deletes your files/system files, slows down your system, etc., that's it's role, whether the operating system allows it or not is irrelevant, if the USER can do it, then a virus can do it.

So unless all computer users in the world suddenly i